Risks and wrongs in social science research - An evaluator's guide to the IRB

被引：72

作者：

Oakes, JM ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Univ Minnesota, Div Epidemiol, Minneapolis, MN 55455 USA

来源：

EVALUATION REVIEW | 2002年 / 26卷 / 05期

关键词：

D O I：

10.1177/019384102236520

中图分类号：

C [社会科学总论];

学科分类号：

03 ; 0303 ;

摘要：

Having an Institutional Review Board (IRB) review and monitor the use of human subjects is now fundamental to ethical research. Yet social scientists appear increasingly frustrated with the process. This article aims to assist evaluators struggling to understand and work with IRBs. The author theorizes why IRBs frustrate and insists there is only one remedy: 4 ? must accept the legitimacy of IRB review and (a) learn more about IRB regulations, imperatives, and the new pressures on them: and (b) educate IRBs about social scientific methodologies and empirically demonstrable risks. A research agenda and tips tire offered.

引用

页码：443 / 479

页数：37

共 148 条

[1]

Aday L.A., 1996, DESIGNING CONDUCTING, V2nd

[2]

AMDUR R, 2002, I REV BOARD MANAGEME, pR25

[3]

AMDUR R, 2002, I REV BOARD MANAGEME, P105

[4] Medical privacy and medical research - Judging the new federal regulations [J].

Annas, GJ .

NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2002, 346 (03) :216-220

[5]

[Anonymous], SAGE HDB APPL SOCIAL

[6]

[Anonymous], I REV BOARD MANAGEME

[7]

[Anonymous], 1996, Research ethics: A psychological approach

[8]

[Anonymous], I REV BOARD MANAGEME

[9]

*ARCHE, 1995, FIN REP ADV COMM HUM

[10]

Beauchamp TL, 1994, Principles of biomedical ethics

← 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 →